Mobility for IPv4 (mip4)

In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       Additional MIP4 Web Page

Last Modified: 2008-09-18

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/mip4

Chair(s):

  • Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>

  • Pete McCann <pete.mccann@motorola.com>

    Internet Area Director(s):

  • Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
  • Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>

    Internet Area Advisor:

  • Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>

    Mailing Lists:

    General Discussion: mip4@ietf.org
    To Subscribe: mip4-request@ietf.org
    In Body: subscribe
    Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4/index.html

    Description of Working Group:

    IP mobility support for IPv4 nodes (hosts and routers) is specified in
    RFC3344. RFC 3344 mobility allows a node to continue using its
    "permanent" home address as it moves around the Internet. The Mobile
    IP protocols support transparency above the IP layer, including
    maintenance of active TCP connections and UDP port bindings. Besides
    the basic Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) protocols, several other drafts deal
    with concerns such as optimization, security, extensions, AAA support,
    and deployment issues.

    MIPv4 is currently being deployed on a wide basis (e.g., in cdma2000
    networks). The scope of the deployment is on a fairly large scale and
    accordingly, the MIP4 WG will focus on deployment issues and on
    addressing known deficiencies and shortcomings in the protocol that
    have come up as a result of deployment experience. Specifically, the
    working group will complete the work items to facilitate interactions
    with AAA environments, interactions with enterprise environments when
    MIPv4 is used therein, and updating existing protocol specifications
    in accordance with deployment needs and advancing those protocols that
    are on the standards track.

    Work expected to be done by the MIP4 WG as proposed by this charter is
    as follows:

    1. MIPv4 has been a proposed standard for several years. It has been
    adopted by other standard development organizations and has been
    deployed commercially. One of the next steps for the WG is to advance
    the protocol to draft standard status. As part of advancing base
    Mobile IP specs to DS, the MIPv4 NAI RFC (2794) will be revised to
    reflect implementation experience.

    2. Work items that are pending from the previous Mobile IP WG, which
    will be completed by the MIP4 WG, are:

    - completion of the MIB for the revised base Mobile IP specification
    (2006bis)

    - regional registration draft.

    3. The MIP4 WG will also complete the work on MIPv4 interactions in
    VPN scenarios. This work will involve identifying the requirements and
    a solution development for MIPv4 operation in the presence of IPsec
    VPNs.

    4. Additionally, a proposal has been made for how MOBIKE could work
    together with MIPv4. This proposal does not describe any new protocol,
    but formulates a best current practice for deploying MOBIKE together
    with MIPv4. The working group will adopt and complete this document.

    5. Some issues have been raised with respect to RFC3519. These will be
    identified and addressed as appropriate, through errata, revision of
    RFC 3519, and/or supplemental documents as needed.

    6. It has been proposed that the FMIP protocol, which has been
    standardised for MIPv6 in the MIPSHOP working group, should also be
    published as an experimental protocol for MIPv4. A draft for this
    exists. The working group will take up and carry this work forward to
    publication

    7. An extension to carry generic strings in the Registration Reply
    message has been proposed. The purpose is to supply supplemental
    human-readable information intended to the MN user. The working group
    will complete the specification and applicability statement of such an
    extension.

    8. RADIUS attributes for MIP4. A set of RADIUS attributes has been
    proposed for MIPv4.

    The working group will first produce a requirements specification,
    describing how the work differs from the requirements in RFC 2977 and
    the functionality provided by RFC 4004 (the MIPv4 Diameter App). The
    reason why this first step is required is that RFC 3127 shows that
    full RFC 2977 functionality can't be provided by even a considerably
    extended RADIUS, so we need to match the requirements to what can be
    done within RADIUS.

    Provided the requirements work finds approval with ADs and RADEXT WG,
    the workgroup will complete the specification of MIPv4 RADIUS
    attributes, solicit feedback from the RADEXT WG, adjust, and submit
    this for publication. Note that the work may require extensions to the
    RADIUS attribute space which will be handled outside the MIP4 WG.

    9. MIPv4 Extension for Configuration Options.

    Several drafts have proposed extensions to help improve configuration
    of MIPv4 clients. The latest proposal is for a general configuration
    option extension which could carry information such as e.g., DNS
    address and DHCP server address. The working group will take on and
    complete one proposal for a configuration option extension.

    10. Dual-stack Support

    There have been several proposals for how to enable an IPv6 connection
    over a network that supports Mobile IPv4. A protocol enhancement to
    MIPv4 would allow for IPv6 support in a region where Mobile IPv4 has
    already been implemented and deployed. This would allow a dual stack
    mobile node to maintain IPv6 connectivity when using MIPv4. The
    solution would therefore be applicable only to networks that are
    not deploying Mobile IPv6.

    The working group will take on and complete one proposal for IPv6 over
    Mobile IPv4. This work is restricted to a small protocol extension
    similar to current Mobile IPv4 functionality. Support for advanced
    Mobile IPv6 functionality is strictly outside the scope.

    A problem statement covering both Mobile IPv4 and IPv6 dual-stack
    issues is expected to come out of MIP6 WG, and will not be developed
    in MIP4 WG.


    11. MIPv4 Moving Network Support

    The Network Mobility (nemo) working group deals with the problem of
    mobility of a whole network, such as might exist inside a vehicle,
    train, or airplane. The nemo working group has developed draft
    specifications for both IPv6 and IPv4 mobile networks. However, it has
    been recognized that the IPv4 version of the protocol can be viewed as
    an extension of the basic Mobile IPv4 protocol, and there is good
    reason
    to do this extension in the mip4 working group. The working group will
    take on the MIPv4 network mobility internet draft and progress it along
    the standards track. In addition, the working group will take up
    extensions to the basic MIPv4 moving network support in the areas of
    dynamic prefix assignment and foreign agent support.


    12. Asynchronous Notification Mechanism

    In some situations, there is a need for Mobile IPv4 entities, such
    as the home agent, foreign agent and mobile node to send and
    receive asynchronous notification events related to the operation
    of the MIPv4 protocol. A couple of examples of such events are
    registration revocation from a home agent to a foreign agent in
    order to terminate the service (to release resources and end
    charging), and notification of pending HA shutdown and indication
    of alternative serving HA, from a HA to the mobile node.

    The base Mobile IP Specification [RFC3344] does not have a
    provision for this. A new MIPv4 message pair which would support
    asynchronous notifications, and a notification model describing
    how to use these messages has been proposed. The working group
    will take on the existing MIPv4 notification message draft as a
    starting point, review and update it as needed, and progress it as
    a standards track document. In addition, the working group will
    also consider defining specific usages of the notification message
    based on the examples in the current document.

    Goals and Milestones:

    Done  AAA Keys for MIPv4 to IESG
    Done  MIPv4 VPN interaction problem statement to IESG
    Done  Low latency handover to experimental
    Done  Experimental MIPv4 message and extensions draft to IESG
    Done  Dynamic Home Agent assignment protocol solution to IESG
    Done  Revised MIPv4 Challenge/Response (3012bis) to IESG
    Done  Regional registration document to IESG
    Done  Generic Strings for MIPv4 (Proposed Std.) to the IESG
    Done  MIPv4 Mobike interaction (BCP) to the IESG
    Done  MIPv4 RADIUS Extensions Requirements to the IESG
    Done  MIPv4 Extension for Config. Options (Proposed Std.) to the IESG
    Done  FMIPv4 (Experimental) to the IESG
    Done  MIPv4 VPN interaction (BCP) to the IESG
    Done  Base MIPv4 Mobile Network Support (Draft Std.) to IESG
    Feb 2008  Revised MIPv4 specification to IESG for Draft Std.
    Mar 2008  Dual-stack MIPv4 (Draft Std.) to IESG
    Mar 2008  Revised MIB for MIPv4 (Proposed Std.) to IESG
    May 2008  RADIUS Extensions for MIPv4 to the RADEXT WG for comment
    May 2008  Notification Mechanism (Draft Std.) to IESG
    Jun 2008  RADIUS Extensions for MIPv4 (Proposed Std.) to the IESG
    Jul 2008  Revised rfc2794bis (NAI extension) (Draft Std.) to the IESG
    Aug 2008  MIPv4 Mobile Network Support for FAs (Draft Std.) to IESG
    Aug 2008  MIPv4 Mobile Network Support Dynamic Address Assignment (Draft Std.) to IESG

    Internet-Drafts:

    The Definitions of Managed Objects for IP Mobility Support using SMIv2, revised (200798 bytes)
    Dual Stack Mobile IPv4 (41193 bytes)
    Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv4 (51180 bytes)
    Dynamic Prefix Allocation for NEMOv4 (11834 bytes)
    The Definitions of Managed Objects for Mobile IP UDP Tunneling (26218 bytes)

    Request For Comments:

    Mobile IPv4 Extension for AAA Network Access Identifiers (RFC 3846) (16834 bytes)
    Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Registration Keys for Mobile IPv4 (RFC 3957) (63576 bytes)
    Experimental Message, Extension and Error Codes for Mobile IPv4 (RFC 4064) (20748 bytes)
    Problem Statement: Mobile IPv4 Traversal of Virtual Private Network (VPN) Gateways (RFC 4093) (44082 bytes)
    Mobile IPv4 Dynamic Home Agent Assignment (RFC 4433) (55636 bytes)
    Foreign Agent Error Extension for Mobile IPv4 (RFC 4636) (11663 bytes)
    Mobile IPv4 Challenge/Response Extensions (Revised) (RFC 4721) (60386 bytes)
    Mobile IPv4 Regional Registration (RFC 4857) (79939 bytes)
    Mobile IPv4 Message String Extension (RFC 4917) (13302 bytes)
    Low-Latency Handoffs in Mobile IPv4 (RFC 4881) (151124 bytes)
    Mobile IPv4 RADIUS requirements (RFC 5030) (20319 bytes)
    Mobile IPv4 Fast Handovers (RFC 4988) (57921 bytes)
    Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 (RFC 5177) (56094 bytes)
    Mobile IPv4 Traversal across IPsec-Based VPN Gateways (RFC 5265) (86254 bytes)
    Secure Connectivity and Mobility Using Mobile IPv4 and IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming (MOBIKE) (RFC 5266) (33186 bytes)
    IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.

    Return to working group directory.

    Return to IETF home page.